Attention, America! This Is Your 2016 Presidents' Day Thread!

Fun for the whole family!

Welcome, one and all, to this year's Hit & Run Presidents' Day game/quiz/argument-starter:

1. Who do you think is the worst president since World War II? (House rule: You're not allowed to say Obama. I want you to exercise your history muscles. Anyway, his term isn't over yet, and for all you know he'll cure cancer next month.)

2. Who do you think is the best—or, if you prefer, the least awful—president since World War II? (House rule: You're not allowed to say Obama. I want you to exercise your history muscles. Anyway, his term isn't over yet, and for all you know he'll nuke Nebraska next month.)

3. Now try to say something nice about the person you picked for answer number one.

4. Now list some of the biggest problems with the person you picked for answer number two.

5. How about first ladies? Who's your favorite first lady?

6. Who's more annoying: People who tediously tell you it isn't really called "Presidents' Day," or people who tediously tell you the Nobel Prize in economics isn't really a Nobel Prize?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

As difficult as it is to believe, yes. Either one of the dems would be worse by a mile. The only R that stands a chance of getting elected AND giving Obama a run for his money would be Trump, but he is such a wild card so who knows.

Bernie would be better only because he hasn’t got a chance of getting anything through a Republican Congress, and the few areas where he can act unilaterally (foreign policy, military adventurism) are still subject to Congressional disfavor. His judicial nominees would be sorry indeed, but also wouldn’t pass a Republican Congress, and I think he’d cave before even spineless Republicans did, since bucking him on everything else would make it easier to buck his nominations.

Hillary and Trump scare me the most. Trump is just a loose crony cannon, unpredictable, and he’d have a Republican Congress to afraid to shut him down. Hillary has 30+ years of political experience, far too much knowledge of skeletons, and not a shred of integrity.

I think you’re astute on the skeletons observation. We’re already seeing her close connections and cohorts, including Obama, dancing to her tune on the email server. Nothing surprising, given the sheer number of congressional leadership and the executive branch involved and complacent.

Yeah, Johnson started the “War on Poverty” that expanded the welfare State more than any President since FDR AND escalated Vietnam but Bush II is the worst? I realize that Medicare part D royally sucks but holy Science!

I know Jessie isn’t 20 so I am going to assume he is simply trolling here.

Haven’t you heard? The Japanese endured the firebombing of Tokyo, and during the Okinawa invasion lost 10’s of thousands who fought to the death but once Stalin waved his finger at them they were ready to capitulate. The reason they didn’t a full two days after the first bomb was because they were pleading for peace from the Americans but the Great Satan wouldn’t listen. Revisionist history is so exceptionally stupid.

My uncle did not have to die in that invasion because of Truman. Fuck your sorry self to death Chipster, Truman saved his life. Turd.

Finally, someone got the right answer to #1. If you took someone directly from the signing of the “Great Society” laws to today and asked them what it was the “Great Society” accomplished, the only real answer would be “the destruction of black society in America.”

If we judge presidents by how well they protect our Constitutional rights, then the worst President since World War II was either Johnson or Bush.

What Johnson did was worse, what with Medicaid, a draft, number of Americans and civilians killed in Vietnam, etc., but Bush was arguably worse than Johnson–in his expansion of Medicare, Iraq, etc because he had Johnson’s terrible example to learn from.

Also, Johnson never elevated violating our Constitutional rights through warrantless wiretapping, denying trials and counsel to American citizens, torture, etc. to the status of official policy.

If Obama was worse than Bush on violating our rights, it’s in large part because he continued the rights violating polices that Bush started.

1. Carter 2. Eisenhower 3. He posed for a picture with my niece and seemed nice in person. 4. Should have done more to move civil rights along. 5. Barbara B. – I don’t remember her launching any personal crusades and it was nice of George to let his grandma be First Lady. 6. The second, It’s a hell of a lot better than the Peace Prize, and a good economist who understands how the free market really works and it’s connection to human nature can do a lot of good.

That’s a strike in his favor. He was there for only four years to fuck things up. Only Ford has him beat there. And let’s not forget that he deregulated the airline industry and legalized home brewing.

I guess my perception of him is colored by his efforts after he left the office, which have been largely positive: human rights, peace, and fighting disease in poor countries.

1. Laura Roslin. She was the secretary of education, for chrissake. 2. Bill Pullman 3. I guess she actually ended up being okay. 4. He let Data get killed by the alien. 5. I choose Bill Clinton in advance. 6. Like John Fox, I choose to punt.

Nixon, Nixon, and Nixon. Wildly unconstitutional meddling in the economy, massive warfare with full knowledge that it was purposeless death (no mistaken intel or misguided intentions), abuse of the IRS and FBI, ramping up the WoD, affirmative action… I mean, seriously, I can’t think of any aspect of governance where he was anything less than frighteningly horrible.

On his death bed my paraplegic uncle told me that he fought in Cambodia and was told in no uncertain terms that if he ever told anyone, as they all were, that the fedgov would find him and kill him. Also, while he was in Vietnam he married a young girl and had a child. The vietcong murdered them while he was fighting in Cambodia.

He was a paraplegic because as soon as he got home from the war he drank an entire 5th of whiskey and laid down on railroad tracks. Nineteen cars went over him. Somehow he survived that.

1. Carter [Iran, from all angles] 2. Ford [he was in office too short a time to cause much damage, Saturday Night Massacre, WIN and swine flu notwithstanding] 3. A good and moral person, just a lousy micromanaging chief executive 4. Presided over rampant inflation and pardoned Nixon, for which he was never forgiven [rightly or wrongly] 5. Barbara Bush, because she did not annoy me by thinking she was more than a first lady 6. Both are annoying so who cares?

I agree that LBJ, Bush II, Nixon, etc. are probably worse than Carter but his lovable elder statesman shtick is very irritating now a days. Besides the one area where he had the chance to take a decisive leadership role, nuclear power, he choose to give in to anti-nuke greenies after the non-event of TMI.

“2. Who do you think is the best?or, if you prefer, the least awful?president since World War II?

Ronald Reagan . . . for so many rights protecting reasons.

His skillful prosecution of the Cold War, alone, should propel him to the top. When he deployed Pershing missiles to Western Europe, that was a stroke of genius. When the European left objected to those deployments, Reagan didn’t sit back and denigrate them as “old Europe” like Bush the Lesser did. Reagan went to Europe and spoke over the heads of the local media, appealing to the people of Western Europe directly to do their part. European leaders (Thatcher, Kohl, Mitterrand, who backed those missile deployments) all won reelection, in part, because of Reagan lobbying the European people.

If that is unimaginable today, it is because Obama and Bush the Lesser’s leadership skills were pathetic.

Reagan next went against conventional wisdom and effectively walked out of talks when the Russians were offering armaments reductions in Reykjavik. After getting blasted in the media for that, Reagan went against his own advisers and embraced Gorbachev–precisely when the time was right.

Those decisions would not have been made by other people. The Cold War would not have ended the way it did without Reagan making those decisions. Reagan’s leadership all but eliminated the greatest threat to Americans and their rights that America has ever faced–and if it were only for that reason, Reagan would be the best President since World War II.

(And that’s all without discussing his role in marginalizing public employee unions, taxes, etc.)

Reagan was vilified by the Hippie movement when he was the Governor of California–he was part of the hated trinity along with Nixon and Agnew.

And Reagan was belligerent to Berkeley peace movement–in no small part because he saw some of the same communists in the crowd when he went to address them at Berkeley that he knew had caused his friends in Hollywood so much trouble for being associated with them.

Nothing constructive happens in this world without effort and intention. Even those that cruise by in a company doing nothing, their lack of inertia is being compensated for by someone else’s effort and intention. The Cold War could have ended in any number of ways.

One of the reasons we shouldn’t expect a nuclear standoff with Iran to end the same way it did with the USSR is because our leadership isn’t the same. Anybody that’s ever had a good boss replaced by a bad one knows that good leadership makes a big difference. It’s bad leadership that doesn’t make any difference at all.

Huh, so their argument is that because of testosterone women are more risk adverse and this will result in a woman led society being a better society. Seems a dumb argument to make, and could very easily be taken as a reason to not promote women. Willingness to take on risk is a large part of how our society advances technologically and culturally. Plus being willing to take risks when you are young and the consequences are small, helps to teach people how to deal with things not going according to plan. Not to mention all the skills picked up by willingness to engage in perceived risky behavior (being a good social operator requires willingness to risk rejection).

The idea that there would be far fewer wars if women held more positions of authority is pretty standard in anthropology, right now

Anthropologists must confuse correlation with causation then. Now that women have gained access to political power, they seem to be just as belligerent as male politicians.

Libya was a joint project of Ann Marie Slaughter, Samatha Power, and Hillary. Meanwhile, Victoria Nuland was busy planting seeds for World War III in the Ukraine and Obama (an honorary woman) was painting red lines for a war in Syria.

“All wars are boyish. People point to Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir as evidence that women, too, can be warlike. But these women were perched atop all-male hierarchies confronting other hypermasculine political pyramids, and they were masculinized as they fought their way to the top.”

There is every reason to think that a future national hierarchy staffed and led by women who no longer have to imitate men, dealing with other nations similarly transformed, would be less likely to go to war.

And it isn’t just the testosterone–the whole damn aggression center is bulging.

“Show me a male brain, and I will show you a bulging amygdala?the brain’s center of fear and violence?densely dotted with testosterone receptors.”

That area is all about aggression.

I don’t think there’s anything anti-libertarian or wrong about this stuff–until they start arguing that women should be in charge because they’re women. If men are more prone to aggression and war, then maybe it is what it is. Who here doesn’t think the Muslim world would be a better place if women weren’t so thoroughly disenfranchised?

And women do tend to mellow us out. There was a time in my life when I was angry and violent. Guys without girlfriends get that way.

There is every reason to think that a future national hierarchy staffed and led by women who no longer have to imitate men, dealing with other nations similarly transformed, would be less likely to go to war.

Bullshit. Have you ever seen two women fight? Men at least impose informal ground rules when they go at it. Women fighting are out to hurt each other, and anything that gets in the way of that is fair game to ignore. And if you want to see catty and vindictive, try listening to women talk about one another. I’ve got news for you. That armed is a recipe for war on an ongoing basis.

The idea that there would be far fewer wars if women held more positions of authority is pretty standard in anthropology, right now.

There might be fewer wars, but there’s be a major international crisis every twenty-eight days.

Yes the comment was mindless misogyny. And stupid shit like that merits no better. Nations don’t go to war because they feel like it. They go to war because they have real interests that come into conflict. Any imbecile who believes a vagina somehow cancels that might want to do a little reading up on Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Elizabeth I of England, or Catherine the Great.

Seriously, anybody who says something that fucking stupid should probably be denied the franchise, let alone an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

“These women were perched atop all-male hierarchies confronting other hypermasculine political pyramids, and they were masculinized as they fought their way to the top.”

Why ignore what he wrote?

Do you or don’t you believe that the character of public policy might change depending on whether women participate at all levels in the policy making process?

My anecdotal experience tells me that women think differently. They’re not men with breasts and ovaries. This guy is tracing the way women think differently than men to hormonal differences–through fetal development mind you–as well as linking the differences to structural differences in the brain.

I don’t see why these facts, if indeed valid, need to suggest that we should move to a Marxist economy based on a feminist totalitarian government. If anything, it might suggest that as women become increasingly less disenfranchised, around the world, then maybe we can expect to live in a more peaceful world.

This is like global warming in a way. If the data suggests that the climate is changing, that doesn’t mean we need authoritarian and socialist remedies right away. Authoritarianism and socialism are unacceptable and unworthy “solutions” to any problem. But we don’t have to deny the data because we don’t like the way some people are spinning its implications. We can just stick to the truth.

Do you or don’t you believe that the character of public policy might change depending on whether women participate at all levels in the policy making process?

Generally, no. In the long run logic wins out. And there is no “male versus female logic”. When there is a confluence of interests, nations will be at peace. When there isn’t, you get war. That isn’t a male or female thing. It’s a reality thing. Sure, women might be, on average, less aggressive. But, if logic favors war, if the long run, it’ll be the more aggressive men or women who get into the role of policy-maker. If it favors peace, it’ll be the less aggressive men or women who make the calls.

This nonsense that neural development determines policy is just so much progressive replacement of “teh feelz” for reason.

I have a general qualitative preference for freedom, sometimes even when it compromises my safety. I prefer to ride my motorcycle through traffic to work everyday. I can’t say my personal preference is completely unrelated to logic. For instance, I’m an excellent rider. I make smart choices when I’m riding. I take reasonable precautions like wearing protective gear.

But I can’t say my personal preference for danger and fun over safety is completely unrelated to the influence of testosterone, having been exposed to certain hormones in the womb that made me develop male rather than female characteristics, or having more prominent areas of my brain dealing with aggression, either.

The libertarian question of whether individuals should be free to make choices for themselves isn’t just circumscribed by logic. Hell, the right to make choices for ourselves means the right to make stupid choices, too. And there are some choices I care more about than others. I care more about motorcycles. Maybe women tend to care more about school choice.

Lenore Skenazy isn’t being less rational than I am if her bundle of personal preferences leads her to different conclusions than mine–about any particular topic. And if the differences between her personal preferences and mine are in any way shaped by the differences in the way men and women think, then that in no way disregards the importance of each of us having the right to make choices for ourselves. I don’t think it’s just about logic.

I hope you realize that although feminists on the left would spin it that way, this data doesn’t really say that at all.

I’m certainly not saying that we should replace top men with top women–although I am suggesting that women having a more prominent role in society (around the world) might make the world a more peaceful place.

Do you realize that anti-Muslim bigots will take what I said and use it to argue for using the government to violate the religious rights of Muslims–sine women are often disenfranchised in the Muslim world? Maybe neocons will use it as a justification for invading Syria!

The funny thing is that I don’t think you guys are all that far apart in general. It is just that I think you guys are answering different questions.

I agree with Ken that women are not men with breasts and ovaries. Women in general do tend to approach problems differently. I am not going so far as to say emotion vs logic. It is more subtle than that. Women also tend to look at problems more holistically rather than attacking pieces one at a time (like how mothers can multitask, but don’t talk to me when i am watching TV, I WON’T HEAR YOU!). And I don’t think there is any doubt that testosterone can lead to more aggression and risk taking behavior. Although, depression can also lead to risky behaviors. Men can also compartmentalize better, in general.

At the same time, I agree with Bill that women wouldn’t necessarily be better (or worse) in positions of authority. And I don’t think that women would necessarily make for a more peaceful place. The character of how conflicts start may look somewhat different, but I think he is right in that when nation’s interest intersect, they can work together. And when they are opposed, there will be conflict.

It sounds to me like replacing Top. Men. with Top. Women. is a good way to get an argument 50 years or so down the road when everything’s just the same that Womenization just hadn’t really been tried or tried hard enough or tried with the Toppest of Top. Women. – exactly the same way Bernie can right now argue that socialism works fine and dandy in theory and anywhere reality diverges from theory, well, that’s reality’s fault.I suspect that matriarchal power dynamics don’t wind up any different than patriarchal power dynamics, when push comes to shove there’s still going to be pushing and shoving.

Republicans had control of the Senate for six years while Reagan was in office.

Democrats had decisive control of the House the entire time he was in office.

Congress actually overrode some of Reagan’s vetoes.

It’s astounding that Reagan was able to do what he did on taxes.

That he wasn’t able to force spending cuts on the Democrats AND get the other things he got done shouldn’t surprise anybody.

Also, I didn’t say Reagan was a perfect libertarian. I said Reagan was the best President we’ve had since the end of World War II–and for specific reasons. I will say, too, hoever, that if we ever have a President as awful as Reagan again, we’ll be really, really lucky.

Nothing about cursing the 80’s being the decade of greed (the economy took off) out of one side of their mouths and the screeching about Reagan’s trickle down economics out of the other side of their mouths?

Yeah, uhum, ok. Reagan single-handedly destroyed the Soviet Empire. Sounds like a great argument in favor of a strongman dictator. Vote for Trump, everyone.

No. The Soviet Union was destroyed from within by the accumulating effects of 70 years of central planning. This economic argument is what libertarians should be exploring and promoting, not some hero worship of a president that blew up the deficit in order to bloat the military and pass the costs onto future generations.

North Korea is only surviving with Chinese help. But it will implode, sooner or later. Eventually, Korea will reunite. Hell, if it wasn’t for US and Chinese meddling, unification might already be in the works.

“But it will implode, sooner or later. Eventually, Korea will reunite.”

Standard of living in NK has been improving during the last few years. It might be later than you think. There’s nothing inevitable about re-unification. If you look at the history of the peninsula over the past 5000 years or so, you’ll see the periods of unity are exceptional.

Reagan was not only blasted by the media; he was blasted by neo-con hawks like Perle in his own administration.

These anti-Soviet militarists were vociferous in their opposition to Reagan’s advocacy of strategic arms reductions, and refused to see Gorbachev as a guy the US could negotiate with.

The media hated Reagan so much that they were happy to be co-opted by the neo-cons (the enemy of my enemy is my friend.) The media opposed Reagan’s initiatives for strategic arms reductions as naive, even though they had for years been sympathetic with the unilateral disarmament movement. It was a very strange time.

“What is wrong with you Ken? Cant you read? It is right there in his name, mtrueman. Mr. True Man. True. He is true. Don’t question what he says.”

As in the article I linked, Reagan rallied a collection of Socialist (with a capital “S”) governments and prime ministers to deploy American missiles in Western Europe–over the objections of protesters throughout Western Europe. This was integral to winning the Cold War as we did.

“When he deployed Pershing missiles to Western Europe, that was a stroke of genius. When the European left objected to those deployments, Reagan didn’t sit back and denigrate them as “old Europe” like Bush the Lesser did. Reagan went to Europe and spoke over the heads of the local media, appealing to the people of Western Europe directly to do their part. European leaders (Thatcher, Kohl, Mitterrand, who backed those missile deployments) all won reelection, in part, because of Reagan lobbying the European people.”

NATO announced its intention to deploy in Western Europe, but no one could overcome local political objections to deploying them until Reagan came along.

The first ones were deployed in late 1983.

My point in my comment was that Reagan was responsible for them being deployed–and any announcements NATO made before he got into office are beside the point.

My point now is also that mtruman is a pathetic jackass, whom I suspect trolls these boards with inane and irrelevant quibbling because he has no friends or family.

It appears you agree with me that there is nothing “ingenious” about carrying through with plans that were already made by others.

“whom I suspect trolls these boards with inane and irrelevant quibbling because he has no friends or family.”

I’m taking exception to your use of the idea of genius. And as a result you’ve tempered your phrasing, making for a more level headed account of what Reagan did, and you get ti throw around gratuitous insults, to boot. Everyone’s a winner.

1) Bush II, because us was so fucking ignorant and did so much bad because of it. Can anyone forget him walking into the glass door and standing there like a mannequin until someone rescued him, or reading that damned book upside down even after he had been told of 1/11 because he didn’t want to scare the kiddies? Then there’s the prescription boondoggle, TARP, Iraq, leaving Afghanistan early), ….

2) Carter, because he was innocuous, he did deregulate airlines and trucking, and he only served one term.

3) I suppose not being Gore.

4) Probably the most honest President, most personal integrity. But I wonder if he tells his Secret Service detail to help when he builds houses.

Nothing demonstrates how critical elections are like the sudden death of a conservative Supreme Court Justice, and nothing demonstrates just how critical it is to get the Senate back in Democratic hands.

“Moulitsas was born in Chicago, Illinois, to a Salvadoran mother and a Greek father. He moved with his family to El Salvador in 1976, but later returned to the Chicago area in 1980 after his family fled threats placed on their lives by communist insurgents during the Salvadoran Civil War.[2] As an adult, he has recounted his memories of the civil war, including an incident that occurred when he was 8 years old, in which he saw communist guerrillas murdering students who had been accused of collaborating with the government.[4]”

….Naturally he became a lifelong and ardent Leftist having witnessed The People’s Power in action.

1. LBJ 2. Eisenhower 3. He was from Texas. 4. Muh Highwayzz, SS expansion 5. I like Laura Bush… she didn’t seem to take to the limelight very much, and I see her name associated with a bunch of good stuff here in Dallas. 6. I don’t care about those things, so I’m going to say people who think that their feelings are the only basis they need for their beliefs.

1 – Hillary Rodham Clinton. Will be so awful, we’ll all be pining for the good old days of Bush and Yomomma. 2 – Ike (a no brainer). 3 – Ummm, she has a very wide and colorful array of pantsuits. 4 – Helped to grease the skids for Nixon. 5 – First lady Bill Clinton. Without him, we would never have had Monica Lewinsky jokes. 6 – People who incorrectly call Washington’s Birthday “President’s Day”. Especially people who are supposed to be fighting against the all-powerful Cult of the Presidency.

2. Reagan. I know, I know but there’s something to be said about at least making fiscal conservatism and individual liberty popular, even if only in rhetoric. Demolishing post-New Deal consensus on role of government is no small accomplishment.

1. LBJ: Vietnam, the War on Poverty, and he used to pick his basset hounds up by their ears 2. Reagan 3. He owned basset hounds. 4. His relationship with his wife was certifiably creepy. 5. Laura Bush: She was a librarian. 6. That really hurts my feelings, and it isn’t nice to do that on the day that we celebrate George Washington’s birthday.

On further thought they were all pretty terrible, except Washington. The next least would be Jefferson and the next least awful all of those that had the decency to get shot. Hamilton takes top place here because he had the courage to engage in a duel.

Washington gets a lot of slack from me because he didn’t want to be President and he quit rather than die in office. In spite of his sorry military record, he did have flashes of brilliance, and he did seem capable of learning from his mistakes. He also ran his estate like a good businessman and did free his slaves. Not perfect by any means, but I think he at least tried to do the right thing and was not a glory hound.

1. LBJ: The Great Society has had the effect of nearly ripping it apart 2. Eisenhower 3. He had a soft spot in his heart for ugly people 4. Setting up a century of the Iranian shitshow 5. Laura Bush: She wasn’t a busybody 6. I like to eat paste…what was the question?

1. Geena Davis 2. Hillary Clinton 3. She only had one season 4. She was too presidential for this world 5. Zombie Mary Todd Lincoln 6. I always thought it was Presents Day, which was odd because I always only ever got a single present each time

Worst: Kennedy – he was a haircut with a speechwriter, not a President, but that’s what we elect now. Every damn thing about him was a lie. (Nixon was worst Republican since he shit all over what the GOP was supposed to be as CPBrown said above.)

Best: Least worst? Damn, that’s probably Kennedy, too, since we at least got to kill the bastard. Every other one left some legacy of making government bigger and worse and we didn’t get to kill them for it.

Something nice: See: “Best”

Something bad: See “Worst”

Best First Lady: Mamie, as far as I know, one of the few who didn’t feel entitled to open her yap about some crap just because of her husband’s job.

President’s Day or Nobel Prize in Economics: I haven’t run into many of those for either one, more the “Ford or Chevy” crowd myself. (Ford, Chevy, Dodge, it’s a damn pick-up truck. I buy the cheapest one I can find.)

So the Reason staff are basically asking the commenters to go outside and play while Mommy and Daddy “take a nap”?

OK, then –

1. LBJ

2. Reagan

3. Supported voting rights regardless of race or deceased status

4. Deficit spending

5. Frances Cleveland, because she’s an inspiration to creepy middle-aged guys everywhere: “A longtime close friend of Oscar Folsom, Grover Cleveland, at age 27, met his future wife shortly after she was born. He took an avuncular interest in the child, buying her a baby carriage and otherwise doting on her as she grew up. When her father, Oscar Folsom, died in a carriage accident on July 23, 1875, without having written a will, the court appointed Cleveland administrator of his estate.[2] This brought Cleveland into still more contact with Frances, then age 11….Frances Folsom, who was 21 years old, married President Grover Cleveland, age 49, on June 2, 1886, at the White House.” 6.

Americans have elected nothing in leadership form that furthers the glittering vistas of liberty- so in spite of the minor fringe of goodness that might reflect occasionally and dimly from these people alongside their spirited authoritarian malevolence I’ll just yank a parallel universe out of my ass and imagine some old penny crap.

1. WWII never occurred, but bloodshed among the tittering and disheveled roustabouts was common enough. I wager the fight resulting in the Valley of a Million Wounded compares so Chief Blazing Pasta the Fiery Furball takes my vote.

2. The Fuckaroo party of the jello cloud jostled a large iron beast into the grandest position of authority shortly after the vanishing of Chief Blazing Pasta. This bemused contraption they called Zarton King of Fuckaroos. A real fuckaroo this mindless metal incongruity. But the creatures of the various surrounding kingdoms hosted large lightning-riddled orgies and afterwards drifted on eagle wing-scented mists deep into the magic sunsets regularly under the bored gaze of Zarton.

4. Zarton King of the Fuckaroos had springs and ancient rocks for brains. But this wasn’t his biggest problem. He was a metal effigy that shit jello and angry reams of confused data compiled by lunatics who almost melted three entire cities.

5. The gorgeous Ethereal Jasmine. She married three creatures, one of which was a notably muscular but inconsequential leader with eyes on his arms and a massive penchant for crystalline vehicles.

6. Nothing is more annoying than being trapped between parallel dimensions in a taxi with a smelly drunk space lizard trying to force you to buy timeshares on fucking planets that don’t fucking exist.

1. Johnson. Everything bad Bush did Johnson also did, but in addition to that he was a crazed racist and remarkably sleazy. 2. Eisenhower 3. Treated his dog well 4. Didn’t revise the idiotic New Deal tax code enough. 5. Favorite first lady since WWII or ever? If ever, then the answer is Abigail Adams. Since WWII, I’d go with Barbara Bush because the time she said the country didn’t need more Bushes in the White House was awesome. 6. I’ve never had anyone do either of these things so I can only conclude my friends suck vastly less than Jesse Walker’s.

I never said all the CR bills were perfect legislation. In the grand scheme of things, however, Jim Crow was one of the 3 most unlibertarian things in the history of the United States. The unlibertarian parts of the CRA aren’t even close to that. The restrictions on freedom of association put in place were nowhere near as bad as those that were torn down. On the balance, it was a positive thing. I have no problem arguing that it was imperfect, but overall beneficial, even if that makes me an impure cosmotarian in the eyes of some people here. Also, I wasn’t just referring to the 64 bill, but also the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which stopped a lot of oppressive shit the South was doing to intimidate and prevent black people from voting.

Jim Crow was one of the 3 most unlibertarian things in the history of the United States.

Jim Crow was a series of laws. Unjust laws that ought to have been repealed and judged to be invalid. The parallel between Jim Crow and the CRA is how the state gets to dictate the terms of human interaction.

The restrictions on freedom of association put in place were nowhere near as bad as those that were torn down. On the balance, it was a positive thing.

Telling a local or state government they can’t have racially discriminatory laws is one thing. Telling private people with whom they must or must not interact is another thing. Yeah it does balance out, in the sense that boot-licking statism dictates the terms of human interactions before and after.

even if that makes me an impure cosmotarian in the eyes of some people here

If I had a dime every time some leftoid “libertarian” cried about his impurity, I’d have enough money to buy them all tissues to cry into. Own your fucking argument, your stupid, emotional little irrational argument that it is.

1965 Voting Rights Act, which stopped a lot of oppressive shit the South was doing to intimidate and prevent black people from voting.

Again, government was causing those things. You don’t give a fuck about free association, you give a fuck about people being forced to interact in ways that please your delicate sensibilities.

“Jim Crow was a series of laws. Unjust laws that ought to have been repealed and judged to be invalid. The parallel between Jim Crow and the CRA is how the state gets to dictate the terms of human interaction.

Telling a local or state government they can’t have racially discriminatory laws is one thing. Telling private people with whom they must or must not interact is another thing. Yeah it does balance out, in the sense that boot-licking statism dictates the terms of human interactions before and after.”

Jim Crow laws did both of those things. If you really want to sit upon your throne of moral righteousness and pretend that the two things are equivalent, then go ahead. It’s not my fault you’re demonstrating tremendous historical ignorance and a terrible sense of proportion. Your argument reminds me of the idiot leftists that think the US was just as bad as the USSR because (insert example of the US doing something bad here).

“If I had a dime every time some leftoid “libertarian” cried about his impurity, I’d have enough money to buy them all tissues to cry into. ”

Is anyone who isn’t sufficiently libertarian for you a “leftoid?” Anyone who acknowledges any sort of nuance when it comes to analyzing unlibertarian policies? Also, there as many or more comments about impurity from the conservatives and conservative-leaning people here, so that comment doesn’t even make sense.

Tell me again who’s the one getting emotional? Don’t hurt yourself up on that cross you’ve got yourself on.

“Again, government was causing those things.”

What does that have to do with whether or not the VRA was an example of a good thing that happened under Johnson?

What I find hilarious is that you’ve repeatedly on this board downplayed criticism of European imperialism on the grounds that they at least cared about property rights, individualism, etc in contrast to the peoples they conquered. And yet you have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who doesn’t think the CRA is equally unlibertarian as Jim Crow. Astounding.

Yes, Jim Crow laws were state laws, but how did such laws get passed in the first place? Because the majoriry of the population supported such laws. So you could say that the government was reflecting the values of the population. This does not mean that top-down coercion is the best way of tackling such situations.

She agreed to take a shower with a guy in Africa (don’t care that it’s south Africa, nowhere on that continent equals America), and then she was surprised he took that as a defacto agreement to sex. Too dumb to live that one. Seriously, standing up for your morals and world view means behaving in ways that are in line with them, not behaving in ways that assume everyone else is in line with them. I think stealing is wrong, so I don’t steal. I would be a fucking moron to leave my brand new phone unattended in a busy public location, though.

Since I got raped last month, I’ve been spending more time naked in public with strangers. (Yes, you heard that right!) Not only do I enjoy the freedom I feel being nude in nature, but it’s also to prove the point that nudity does not equate to sex or rape. I skinny dipped in a few waterfalls and swam naked at night in the Indian Ocean. I was with men & women from different backgrounds and ages and GUESS WHAT? I didn’t get raped.

A STEVE SMITH joke is waiting around, but I am too slackjawed after reading this to make it.

Since my wallet was stolen after I left it on top of my car in a rough neighborhood, I have continued to leave it on my car in nicer neighborhoods and it hasn’t happened again yet! But the second it does, I’ll be sure to keep you victim blamers posted.

On a less sarcastic note, it’s no less wrong when a crime happens because someone was an idiot. But it’s kind of insulting to act like it’s as sympathetic as a victim who couldn’t have done anything differently.

I have seriously had money stolen because I left it out in public while unattended. The person who did that was as immoral as someone who would break into a house, but I didn’t go whining to everyone I met about how I should be allowed to leave my purse wherever. I was embarrassed at my own negligence and learned my lesson

Truman. People forget how awful he was. Appointed some jackasses to cabinet positions. Tore apart the WWII military with no notion of being able to fight another war. The result was the Korean War which he damn near lost.

1. Bush II. Shoutout to Carter, Nixon, and Johnson. 2. Reagan. Shoutout to Eisenhower 3. Tax cuts … I guess? The accompanying spending increases causing large deficits kinda negates that though. 4. Iran Contra, deficit spending, WOD, and actions in Central America. 5. Can’t really say, Laura Bush, Hillary, and Michelle are the only 3 I know well enough to have an opinion on. I guess Laura Bush out of those 3, followed by Michelle, and with Hillary last. 6. Who gives a shit?

1. GWB 2. Obama (fuck your rules) 3. Ultimately, he didn’t go to war with Iran 4. His continuance of the drug war, his failure to exit Afghanistan, the dithering of his cabinet over Benghazi, the fact that he ran as a visionary and ran the country as a technocrat 5. Pat Nixon 6. The fact that Armistice Day is now called Veteran’s Day

1. Tossup LBJ/Bush- obvious 2. Reagan- What Serious said 3. Taking briefings on the shitter thing is the best I can do/at least he was a pilot 4. Iran/Contra, spending and drugs 5. Babs was a babe! 6. People who tell me I need to vote R becuz, MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR TIMEZ!

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt (Honorable mentions LBJ and Richard Nixon) 2. Dwight D. Eisenhower (Honorable mention: Jed Bartlett from the West Wing, a fake President that gave good speeches and had no effect on the country whatsoever, my kind of President. Also Gerald Ford, but I repeat myself) 3. He jumped on the “Repeal Prohibition” bandwagon, that’s about it. 4. Iran, Guatemala, Operation Wetback, Kept Nixon on the ticket. 5. Eleanor Roosevelt, a tireless advocate for the rights of minorities, the thorn in FDR’s ear, and the KKK hated her so much they put a $25,000 bounty on her head. (Honorable mention: Betty Ford) 6. I don’t spend time with those sort of people. And the few people I know who think like that, know better than to bring it up with me.

I do agree with you. However (pedant alert) I don’t see how this is synechdoche? It isn’t really any form of metaphor or metonym. It literally is just a shortening of the name. And considering the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awards it, the prize in physics and the prize in chemistry, it is really simply another Nobel prize that was added 67 years after the others were first awarded. It would be like referring to the President, rather than the President of the United States. I don’t think that would be considered synechdoche. Unlike using the phrase “The White House earlier issued a statement….”

Oh David Wong and company, you hateful, little shits! Why haven’t you gotten the message that with your special combination of ham-fistedness and smug superciliousness, you’ve made Cracked as funny as a pediatric cancer ward?

Washington is waking to a new political reality on Monday, just two days after the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, which left a turbulent White House race transformed, a lame-duck president back at the center of the political storm and Senate Republican leaders juggling an electoral hand grenade.

I haven’t seen CNN all weekend – have they mentioned Ted Cruz is running for President yet or is it still just Donald Trump and a bunch of guys talking about Donald Trump in the race? (Or did Ted Cruz say something about Donald Trump to make himself newsworthy?)

CNN suddenly determined Saturday night that the constitution should no longer be a neglected ginger living under the stairs with old memories and moldy spiders. Instead, she’ll be plucked, dusted off, fed candies, and used in sentences bursting with presidential rights and the number 9.

For all of Hillary’s institutional advantages and establishment support, Iowa was fertile grounds ? given the demographic makeup of the state ? for the Bernie Revolution to take root and catapult his campaign to a resounding victory in the caucus. The Democrats who participate in the Iowa Caucus are overwhelmingly white and progressive ? mirroring the core of Sander’s base. Couple this with the fact that the Sanders campaign has morphed into a grass roots juggernaut, with more than 3 million small contributors to date ? a record for any candidate in history. So considering all of that, the fact that Hillary was able to keep the Sanders in check in Iowa and eke out a small victory at the same time is the true breakout story of the night. In a virulently anti-establishment climate in politics, Hillary, who many see as the most establishment of candidates, still emerged on top.

Hillary did this by staying focused, doing her homework, and fighting tooth and nail for every single vote. This is how you win elections. I have more faith than ever in Hillary’s prospects to win the nomination and the general election. It all comes down to the arithmetic (as Bill Clinton loves to say) at the end of the day.

Despite what some people say, Hillary Clinton is the most electable candidate running in either party. She is definitely a progressive, but she is not a dyed in the wool ideologue. She has an approach to things that most Americans, even if they are not progressive, find workable. Americans historically do not elect candidates to the presidency who present themselves as hardened ideologues… as demonstrated with the epic defeats of Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat George McGovern and the routine flushing of ideologues like Huckabee, Santorum etc who run for their party’s nomination.

Flushing of Huckabee and Santorum. So they picked the rightest of the religious right of those running in the last several cycles. Romney wasn’t “workable”? McCain wasn’t “workable”? Bob Dole wasn’t “workable”? Bush I wasn’t “workable”? All four of those Rs were all known before the general election as willing to reach across the aisle, not arch-conservatives, etc. Bush II vs. Gore was a tie. And I don’t think any D had a chance in 2004 since the Iraq war hadn’t turned into the full blown quagmire yet, and Americans probably weren’t going to change horses in the middle (yet).

She really is the worst person possible for the job. I am convinced that is why they like her so much. They look at her corruption, cynicism and entitlement, her awful record and they recognize her as one of their own.

I said it before – they admire her for her determination to take the prize. The more she cheats and lies, the more it proves to them how damn hard she’ll push to advance the cause. You want somebody who will do anything – lie, cheat, steal, kill, eat a giant bag of shit – to win or you want somebody with morals and scruples and a sense of decency who might accept a loss if winning meant selling his soul?

1. Nixon 2. Eisenhower 3. He kept good audio records. 4. Don’t give us a scary good bye warning about the Military Industrial complex. Do something about while you are the HMFIC, General. 5. Don’t care 6. People who even think there is “real” presidents day.

The prolonged sell-off in risk assets across the globe will only abate if the U.S. Federal Reserve changes its path and begins to loosen its monetary policy once again, according to strategists at Deutsche Bank.

Chinese growth fears, stress in the U.S. energy sector and fragile balance sheets in European financial companies have all been credited in the last week for fueling the sell-off. However, there’s only one real cure for this current bout of weakness, according to a team of European equity analysts at the German bank, led by Sebastian Raedler.

“Without policy intervention, there is more downside risk for equities,” the bank said in a note entailed “The smell of default” on Monday.

Looks like the point two five was just too much for the global stock markets because of how awesome rainbow-super-sparkle-good our economy is.

Or, you know, global banking could get with a market strategy where they staeted writing down their bad debt now and tightening their own lending. Like any other sector, sometimes finance needa to re-org, write odd the bad inventory, fire the slackers, and not make a profit for 2-5 years while they do so.

That would lead to a major recession/depression. As I understand it, writing down that debt would also knock-on through the banking system to dry up liquidity. Even though its pretty obviously what needs to happen, nobody wants to take the pain on their watch.

This is has been a big game of kick-the-can since 2008-09. Everybody wants to be Bernanke – retired before the bill comes due.

As the Esteemed RC Dean pointed out, they’ve absolutely researched it and she knows the answer. There’s no way the Fed has been kicking around for the last ~75 years and has never asked that question or had a team of lawyers discuss it. That’s just Yellen dodging the answer.

They are worried about a deflation, so negative rates would, theoretically, take money out supply and thus stabilize prices. I’m not sure how that will work in fact as trying to put negative rates on most individuals’ money will just drive a cash economy. There’s no plus (sure I’m paying 10% to borrow, but they pay me 7% to save). Banks aren’t going to loan me money at negative 1 if prime is -2. It’s a highly potential discontinuity.

It’s not a pie in the sky notion; it’s been thoroughly researched. The EU and Japan are already in negative interest territory.

Above -1%, the costs of storing and protecting cash are enough to prevent large depositors from withdrawing their money. If they want to go lower than that, then you have to impose capital controls. The propaganda for getting rid of cash to stop terrorists and criminals is already out there.

Sorry, Jesse, you can’t rule out Obama and pick Bush. It’s just as mindlessly ahistorical. If you ask any Democrat about anything that’s sucked for last eight years, you’d think Bush was still president. And really, Nixon or Johnson would have written both of them off as pikers.

I nearly did say Nixon, but there were a few substantial steps in the right direction under his watch, amid all the awfulness. (The end of the draft, for example.) I couldn’t think of anything like that under Bush. (Nothing major, anyway.)

Other than not renewing the AWB that was set to expire during his term before he even took office, did Bush do anything himself in that area? I know there’s been progress at the state and local level, and a couple good SCOTUS decisions, but is there anything else at the federal level?

1. LBJ 2. Reagan 3. He had the decency to not get re-elceted 4. Iran Contra, didn’t reduce spending or size of government enough 5. Barbara Bush. Because I can’t think of anything she tried to do while first lady – no “Let’s Move” or “Just Sat No” horseshit 6. Both?

1. El Beejay – for Vietnam, for creating the modern ghetto and the perpetual underclass, etc. 2. Nobody. There is no best president since WWII. 3. He’d cuss out congressmen on the phone while dooking, and that’s hilarious. 4. No matter how many people write in “nobody” on their ballot this time around, the winner will still be “somebody” and the loser will be “everybody.” 5. Marilyn Monroe. 6. Neither one really means anything, so who cares?

1. Johnson 2. Eisenhower 3. The Civil Rights Act 4. (same as yours) 5. Probably Eisenhower’s wife, because I don’t know anything about her. That’s how it should be — acquiring political power through one’s spouse is off-putting. 6. The Presidents’ Day people.

Reasanoids, an American company is going to open a tractor factory in Cuba in a ‘special economics’ zone. Does anyone know if this is going to actually be to the benefit of the Cubans employed, or is it going to be a gloried transaction between the business owners and the Cuban state for slave labor?

I consider the War of Independence the Second World War. (The first being the Second Punic Wars of course)

1. Henry Laurens cause he was big into slave trading 2. John Jay cause he was dreamy 3. Not super fond of England 4. Didn’t do more to lock down individual rights 5. Abigail Adams 6. Alfred Nobel’s corpse could power a small city

I consider the War of Independence the Second World War. (The first being the Second Punic Wars of course)

1. Henry Laurens cause he was big into slave trading 2. John Jay cause he was dreamy 3. Not super fond of England 4. Didn’t do more to lock down individual rights 5. Abigail Adams 6. Alfred Nobel’s corpse could power a small city

Thanks for the play-along, reason. Lots of fun. The thing is, to want to be president, I think you’d have to be pretty narcissistic and/or monomaniacal (if the two of those things don’t rule each other out). So to ask us mere plebes to pick who is worst, and then who is least annoying, is actually very hard.

What’s with the tuxedo cats that make them so evil? I got a text from my wife that I have some gore to hose out of the garage tonight. Why? Because the tuxedo cat thought it was appropriate for her to catch a rabbit and disembowel it under my wife’s car.

The other cats dispatch their prey out in the yard like reasonable beings.

Blaming him for what, starting it? Hmm, I’m re-reading my comment, and can’t find any mention of that. I’m merely blaming him for dragging his fucking feet in puling out American troops. He ran on ending the war, but took five years to do so, which, IIRC, is about the same amount of time that LBJ was at the helm during the Vietnam War. BRB while I google how many more troops were killed under Nixon, too.

Sorry, not even close. And in Nixon absolutely did reduce American military deaths:

Yes he did, arguably by illegal bombing in Cambodia. Everyone knew the NVA was moving through Cambodia to move men and materiel which were outside the legal zone of conflict. When Nixon ordered (or ok’d — i’m sure it wasn’t only Nixon who was pushing this idea) the bombing of Cambodia it was devastating to NVA regular operations.

Whatever the merits of bombing Cambodia, I’ve never considered it illegal. There is basically a “hot pursuit” doctrine in the law of war that allows you to cross borders to get at your declared enemy. If the third party doesn’t like it, they can get rid of your declared enemy themselves, since they aren’t supposed to allow combatants to use their country anyway.

Its pretty simple: if a combatant is using your territory, they are either (a) your allies (making you fair game), (b) your enemies, in which case you need to kick them our or (c) you don’t really control that territory anyway, so you aren’t in a position to complain.

Ah, so more than a third of Vietnam military deaths can be attributed under Nixon’s purview. Well that’s just rosy. But hey, he certainly wound down the war.

I’m not saying that Nixon should be wholly blamed for the war, just simply that his handling of it during his presidency was abysmal. Which is usually what happens when you launch wars in the name of democracy against those godless commie bastards.

1. LBJ. No new reasons to add. 2. Reagan. Lowered tax rates. 3. Didn’t get MAD magazine taken off the shelf when they did their mock “Toilet Tissue Too Tough” ad. 4. Wrong stance on drug war. 5. Jackie Kennedy as long as she kept her mouth shut during coitus. 6. Depends on the person making the argument at the time they are within earshot.

If you give Americans hundreds of dollars in savings from plummeting gasoline prices, they’re going to turn it into food.

Of course, they’ll say in surveys that they put it towards rent or into savings, but credit card data s

For people who bought gas at least twice in the last two years, the savings were more than $100. Yet average spending on credit cards did not decrease year-over-year across all categories tracked in August and December (as you would expect if most of the money was going into savings or rent).

1. LBJ: Laid blueprint for all the executive stupidity to come; from ‘wars’ on abstractions, to real wars becoming Congressional ‘resolutions.’

2. Bush 41: Handled end of cold war with aplomb; put together last coherent and successful American military adventure with all the bells and whistles of internationalism. Shut down Rocky Flats, secured Canal Zone from clown, Graham-Rudman threw real procedural wrench into unlimited government growth for years to come.

3. Plane LBJ was riding on almost got shot down by legendary IJN ace Saburo Sakai in the Battle of Guadalcanal – Sakai picked the B-17 next to Johnson’s instead.

4. Read lips.

5. Jackie. Classy, relatively good looking, very cultured, great taste and connections.

6. President’s Day peeps are more annoying – they’re just being pedantic. The Nobel Economics not being a ‘real’ Nobel explains a lot.

GHWB did leave the no-fly zones dangling in Iraq, and a lame-duck intervention in Somalia that Clinton had to clean up. His handling of the early days of the post-Soviet Russian republic was atrocious, and set the stage for a lot of problems we have now.

3. Seems like a well intentioned person, Habitat for Humanity is a nice charity.

4. Sloppy attention to detail, or general corruption with tentacles ruining everything that could potentially be good about the Democratic party solely for self-interest not even promoting his Third Way ideals in any material way, or I don’t know much about Ike.

3. Seems like a well intentioned person, Habitat for Humanity is a nice charity.

4. Sloppy attention to detail, or general corruption with tentacles ruining everything that could potentially be good about the Democratic party solely for self-interest not even promoting his Third Way ideals in any material way, or I don’t know much about Ike.

1. Who do you think is the worst president since World War II? Truman. Dropped two atom bombs. Need I say more? Yes? Then: Korea.

2. Who do you think is the best?or, if you prefer, the least awful?president since World War II? Carter. Legalized beer brewing for us schlubs, and deregulated trucking and airlines. Need I say more? Then: served only four years.

3. Now try to say something nice about the person you picked for answer number one. After retiring, he answered his own door in Independence, MO, when the paper boy came to collect his money. (god, those were those the days).

4. Now list some of the biggest problems with the person you picked for answer number two. One of the first presidents to assume that the U.S. was in a downward trend; that we had to “sacrifice” to make things better. But more than anything, he enforced the 55 mph national speed limit.

5. How about first ladies? Who’s your favorite first lady? Mamie Eisenhower.

6. Who’s more annoying: People who tediously tell you it isn’t really called “Presidents’ Day,” or people who tediously tell you the Nobel Prize in economics isn’t really a Nobel Prize? The first one, because it’s less important and people need to be reminded of the second. What REALLY galls me is that “Armistice Day”, which celebrated peace, has morphed into Veterans Day, which does anything but.

1. Who do you think is the worst president since World War II? Truman. Dropped two atom bombs. Need I say more? Yes? Then: Korea.

2. Who do you think is the best?or, if you prefer, the least awful?president since World War II? Carter. Legalized beer brewing for us schlubs, and deregulated trucking and airlines. Need I say more? Then: served only four years.

Yep, bringing food no one wants to eat to places no one will buy or eat it. Real ‘green revolution’ right there. Why, give her enough time and enough of Jack’s money (presuming he even pays taxes), and she could end the cultivation of lettuce world-wide!

‘A baby whose parents fed him solely on almond milk developed scurvy, doctors have revealed. The Spanish infant had been drinking almond milk since he was two-and-a-half months old after developing an allergy to a cow’s milk formula. By 11 months, he was tired, irritable and couldn’t support his own legs or walk.’

(looks around; PM linx?) First! Poor Spaniards, suffering under austerity and there is NOTHING LEFT TO CUT, DAMMIT!

“Employee skipped work for six years and still received full salary” [?] “A city in Spain was about to award one of its employees with a commemorative plaque for 20 years of service when officials realized the civil worker hadn’t showed up at his job for six years.”http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..831832.php

You don’t understand. People just need to be able to live off the wage. This is a matter of fairness. It just isn’t fair that the rich get to profit off workers who can’t afford to live. Those workers might as well be slaves on corporate plantations. Stupid libertarians like to say “Fuck off slavers!” while licking the boot of their corporate masters. Oh the irony is so delicious.

“He has children and grandchildren and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to mourn him; let’s not do that here. Because Scalia, while brilliant, was also a titanic, sweeping, one-man disaster for LGBT rights, racial justice, abortion access and general human decency….

“Everyone deserves to rest in peace, we suppose, but Scalia is certainly not entitled to any special measure of it.”

1. Lyndon Johnson 2. Ronald Reagan 3. the Civil Rights Act (other than the part restricting private business) and Voting Rights Act 4. Expansion of asset forfeiture and the drug war, ballooning the deficit 5. Laura Bush, only because all the rest of them in my life have been ciphers (Barb) or assholes (Nancy, Hillary, and Michelle) and I don’t know anything about the earlier ones 6. It’s not called Presidents’ Day?

1. Vlad the Impaler 2. Vlad the Impaler 3. Stopped the Muslim hordes from over-running Europe. 4. Impaling people, making a pact with Satan, and becoming Dracula 5. Dolly Madison was the greatest First Lady in American history. 6. People who can’t follow the instructions for Reason’s ” who was the best president?” dealy.

Ok, other than for Jack and any other of his ilk, seriously how can you say Bush II was the worst???? Everything Bush did bad, LBJ did worse. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a big fan of his presidency (although i think in private he is actually quite a decent man). And because Carter did a few things like deregulate the airlines, he is the best? Wow. I mean I get Ike.

Oh and regarding “Nixon’s war” American military deaths in Viet Nam from 1964-1968: 36756 American military deaths in Viet Nam from 1969-1975: 21257.

Not only did Bush put us into a disastrous war the has destabilized the Middle East, and which cost $2T and counting, he presided over an economic catastrophe that only was surpassed by the depression (and hold your opinion that it wasn’t his fault, it was 7 years into his admin).

Oh, and he also was in office when 3000 Americans were murdered on American soil by terrorists, Even though he ignored warnings about it coming 2 months before.

In Presidential history, tomorrow is the anniversary of President Grover Cleveland’s vetoveto of a bill to provide free seeds to drought-stricken Texas farmers.

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune.”

Also, why’s everybody down on Ike’s interstate? I’d think the commerce clause covers that one. And so know how long it used to take to drive across the country? One of the main reasons (drink!) for the interstate system was so that trips and supplies could be moved quickly across the country in time of war.

Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State in that order, and should the President decide he wants to transfer the helm to the Vice President, he will do so. He has not done that. As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending return of the Vice President and in close touch with him. If something came up, I would check with him, of course.

When that happened – Al Haig taking the helm at the White House – I had a twinge thinking that the US had decended into a banana republic : the president gets shot and some former general takes control of the government.

1) LBJ 2) Eisenhower 3) LBJ eventually stopped sabotaging attempts to ban discrimination against blacks. 4) Initiated U.S. involvement in Vietnam, made social security permanent, effectively depriving lower middle class from being able to retire comfortably 5) Jackie Onassis – demonstrated how to maintain one’s dignity in the face of flagrant infidelity. 6) The former – mainly because I am in the latter camp. 😉

1. Nixon (did everything LBJ did and did it worse than saggy-eyes) 2. Clinton (less foreign intervention than the rest of the assholes, signed off on budgets that ran a surplus). 3. Foreign policy break through with China (which started to break Chiang’s lock on American support) 4. Promoted Hillary into political first lady / co-president (and continues to promote her) 5. Jackie 6. I have enough bullets for both

“Creed may also include non-religious belief systems that, like religion, substantially influence a person’s identity, worldview and way of life,” reads the revamped policy on preventing discrimination based on creed

Have to not score Truman plus or minus on atom bombings because Jesse specified “since World War II”. But after the war, he sucked so hard I’m just glad I didn’t have to live thru any of it, but sorry I had to live in his aftermath. It’s amazing he could still be the worst of that time after JFK, LBJ, RMN, & Carter. But I understand he did play piano OK; so did Nixon.

No mames, cabrona. I’m at home nursing a marinating flank steak and killing a six pack of grapefruit sculpin. I’m going to sear it on the grill to rare, then slice it thin and serve over arugula. And y’all got me fucked up if you think I’d choose tail over some rare beef. FUCKED UP I SAY.

Well, and also in LA, the bars, especially downtown, are the worst places to chase quality tail. Unless you’re into impregnating South Bay trash, and living in the Torrance for the rest of your life. Shudder.

My favorite version of that was Jack Paar who walked off the set in a huff, then two weeks later came back to the show after the execs begged him. He walked out on stage after the absence and began his monologue with “So as I was saying…”

Madison would be like, “sir, I went to the College of New Jersey, which is located in the municipality of Princeton. I do not know of any Princeton University at that location, and I would have noticed it had it been there.”

“After completing his junior and senior work in one year, Madison took his degree in the fall of 1771. However, he remained at the college until the spring of the next year to read some law and learn some Hebrew under Witherspoon’s tutelage.”

2) Reagan. Maybe Bill Clinton if you developed amnesia about his first two years, and his choice of a wife.

3) He had the good manners to die, but not soon enough, preferably before Kennedy.

4) His actions were not remotely as libertarian as his talk. Drug war, growing the federal government.

5) Michelle Obama, if she was wearing a tight skirt to show off that big booty. And had duct tape permanently wrapped around her piehole so she couldn’t speak. Seriously, who gives a fuck about First Ladies, so long as they have the good manners to not subsequently run for president?

6) I try to bolt from the presence of annoying people long before they can get around to such topics.

” “These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?…I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options.”

I retain hope that the Onion will not go the way of Cracked and become nothing but a left-wing straw-man-builder

Dallas Museum of Art had a Churchill’s Paintings exhibition last year. Lots of fun. The works reminded me of some of Cezanne’s landscapes. More skill than I would have guessed, even after reading Manchester’s biography (pity he couldn’t get that third volume done).

Book review: “Dressing Constitutionally”, Ruthann Robson Supposedly an examination on how laws affect our dress choices; a homework assignment from a commenter here, suggesting it had valuable insights into how Muslim women might be “empowered(!)” by wearing rags on their heads. I read the reviews, and gave it a Bronx cheer, but commenter pushed my button by claiming I was judging it by its cover. I read and read fast; this took four weeks to read the (less-than sign) 200 pages of intro and content (it’s a text, so there’s notes and bibliography by the bushel). It is nearly unreadable. There were some moderately interesting passages regarding the legal conflicts between Muslim womens’ head/face wear and the social desire for ID (notably, the ‘confrontation clause’ of A6), quite a bit of not-very-interesting anecdotes on various court decisions regarding dress, more than should be on issues only barely peripheral to dress (M/W and child-labor laws resulting from the Shirtwaist fire), and finally entirely too much devoted to whining on the lack of ‘constitutional’ control over issues which are, she’s sorry to admit, private matters. Cont’d

Cont’d All overlain by the typical proggy whine that the government is fucked up and so we need a whole lot more of it, dammit! And enough (faulty) appeals to ‘democracy’, decrying ‘hierarchy’ and ‘sexism’ to remind you that ‘women and minorities will suffer most’. I’ve read several thesis, and this reads like one where her advisors liked the subject matter, but suggested she ‘flesh it out a bit’. And did she ever. Burn this book. (HM, the Khan book is in the queue)

Got more than a couple in front of it, but they look interesting; started on “The Train to Crystal City” (WWII internment) today. Author admits FDR went for it big time, spends much of the text pointing out Rs were involved in it. I’m smelling another ‘well, he made a mistake, but the Rs were *really* behind it’ Jack-like whine here.

Clicking to news services, I see there is a H’wood sales-meeting in process, and as is common, it features pretty young women making fools of themselves. Seems to be little tfx here this evening; wonder if there might be a connection, Crusty…

“Since most sharks are warm-water species, they now are covering a wider area than they once did,” Burgess explained. “And so in the summertime they head farther north or south depending on which hemisphere they are in.” The rise in ocean temperature was particularly notable after one shark attack was reported in New York, only the 10th recorded occurrence in the state’s history. “It’s a very uncommon phenomenon to have sharks and humans getting together in New York waters, so the fact that we had one there is just a little hint that things are a little warmer than they [have] been,” Burgess said.

Bush II was a bad president, but not sure I’d pick him as the worst. Obama’s greatest hits involve massive entitlement spending, two new wars, racial discord, two bailouts, tax increases, and the list goes on. Lets not forget how he destroyed his own party, that’s why we have a socialist and a corrupt idiot running for the democratic nomination.

til I saw the receipt that said $6460 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualy earning money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt started doing this for under thirteen months and recently cleard the depts on there mini mansion and bourt a great Aston Martin DB5 . go to this website…

til I saw the receipt that said $6460 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualy earning money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt started doing this for under thirteen months and recently cleard the depts on there mini mansion and bourt a great Aston Martin DB5 . go to this website…

til I saw the receipt that said $6460 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualy earning money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt started doing this for under thirteen months and recently cleard the depts on there mini mansion and bourt a great Aston Martin DB5 . go to this website…

til I saw the receipt that said $6460 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualy earning money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt started doing this for under thirteen months and recently cleard the depts on there mini mansion and bourt a great Aston Martin DB5 . go to this website…

My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do.. Clik This Link inYour Browser….

The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.